On June
15, 2017, the Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment.
As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, a
Roseboro order was entered by the Court on June 29,
2017, advising Petitioner of the importance of a dispositive
motion and of the necessity for him to file an adequate
response. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he
failed to respond adequately, the Respondent's motion may
be granted, thereby ending his case. Petitioner thereafter
filed a response in opposition to the summary judgment motion
on July 13, 2017, along with a motion to amend to file
certain supplemental documents. Petitioner's motion to
amend was granted, and the supplemental documents were filed
on September 20, 2017.

Petitioner
was indicted by a federal grand jury on February 2, 2002, on
the following charges: (1) manufacturing marijuana plants in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B);
(2) opening and maintaining a place for the purpose of
manufacturing, distributing and using marijuana in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 856(a)(1) and (b); (3) possessing a
firearm in furtherance of the manufacture of marijuana in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A),
(c)(1)(B)(I); and (4) possessing a firearm in furtherance of
the maintenance of a place to manufacture, distribute and use
marijuana also in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B)(I).[2] He was found guilty on all counts
in December, 2000; United States v. Hahn, 38
F.App'x 553, 554 (10th Cir. 2002); and was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of (1) 60
months as to Count One, (2) 27 months as to Count Two, to run
concurrent w/ Count One, (3) 120 months as to Count Three, to
run concurrent w/ Counts One and Two, and (4) 300 months as
to Count Four, to run consecutively with Counts One, Two, and
Three. See Court Docket No. 1-1, p. 9. Petitioner
filed a direct appeal.

(Direct
Appeal)

On
direct appeal, Petitioner raised the following issue:

the statute does not authorize treating his second firearm
conviction as “second or subsequent” to the first
for purposes of the statues's sentencing enhancement,
because the underlying drug crimes were part of a
“continuing incident” and were “coterminous
in space and time.”

United States v. Hahn, 38 F.App'x at 554. The
Tenth Circuit rejected his argument, holding as follows:

In United States v. Sturmoski, 971 F.2d 452, 461
(10th Cir. 1992), we wrote that “consecutive
sentences may be imposed for multiple 924(c) counts if the
offenses underlying each 924(c) count do not constitute a
single offense for double jeopardy purposes.” In
Sturmoski the underlying offenses were attempting to
manufacture a controlled substance and maintaining a place
for manufacturing a controlled substance. Id. We
held that Congress intended multiple convictions under
924(c), even though the counts involved “the same
criminal episode, ” because Congress intended the
underlying offenses to be separate. Id.
Specifically, we found that, by making it a crime to maintain
a place for manufacturing drugs, “Congress intended to
create a new felony that would punish a defendant's use
of property for manufacturing activities related to
narcotics.” Id. Thus, the conviction for
maintaining a place for manufacture was distinct from the
attempt to manufacture, and accordingly, the associated
924(c) convictions were distinct from each other. The only
difference between the situations in Sturmoski and
in this case is that one of Hahn's 924(c) was for
possession in furtherance of manufacture, rather than
possession in furtherance in attempt to manufacture. Thus,
Sturmoski clearly controls the outcome of this case.
Hahn's conviction for maintaining a place for manufacture
is distinct from his manufacture conviction, and his two
924(c) convictions are also distinct.

We must also reject [Petitioner's] argument that there
can be no “second or subsequent conviction” if
both convictions involve offenses that were
“coterminous in space and time.” We have
consistently held that, even if possession of a firearm
occurs in connection with a single criminal episode, a second
924(c) conviction arising out of that episode can constitute
a “second or subsequent conviction” for
sentencing purposes. In United States v. Parra, 2
F.3d 1058, 1062 (10th Cir. 1993), the offenses
underlying two 924(c) convictions were possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute. In United States v. Romero,
122 F.3d 1334, 1337 (10th Cir. 1997), the offenses
underlying two 924(c) convictions were carjacking and
interference with commerce by robbery and extortion. In both
cases, we held that the district court properly treated one
of the 924(c) convictions as “second or subsequent
conviction.” Parra, 2 F.3d at 1071;
Romero, 122 F.3d at 1343-1344.

United States v. Hahn, 38 F.App'x at 555.

The
Tenth Circuit concluded that “prior precedent defeats
[Petitioner's] sole argument on appeal. The district
court properly treated one of Petitioner's 924(c)
convictions as a ‘second or subsequent conviction,
' and the sentence imposed by the district court is
therefore AFFIRMED.” Hahn, 38 F.App'x at
555. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, but on January
27, 2013, the Supreme Court denied his petition. Hahn v.
United States, 537 U.S. 1173 (2003).

(First
§ 2255 Petition)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On
January 14, 2004, Petitioner filed a &sect; 2255 motion to
vacate his sentence, asserting that &ldquo;double jeopardy
bars multiple &sect; 924(c)(1) firearm convictions
&lsquo;based on multiple predicate offenses which are
factually inseparable in terms of time, space and underlying
conduct&#39;, [ ] and that &sect; 924(c)(1) contains a number
of ambiguities, requiring application of the rule of
lenity&rdquo;. United States v. Hahn, 191 Fed.Appx.
758, 760 (10th Cir. 2006). Petitioner claimed that
these arguments were not raised on appeal and that they were
not raised because his ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.